Ulysses S. Grant is a classic late bloomer. Maybe you could argue the ability was always there, but it needed the right circumstances to become apparent. I think there is also an argument that he was ASD, and this may have contributed to his lengthy period of being overlooked, and difficulties in advancing himself in the military and business worlds.
Fascinating! Now I'm going to explore your archive. There must be some interesting parallels with entrepreneurs. For every Zuckerberg there will be someone who needed many years of experience to build a truly great business. Intellectual capital growing with the physical balance sheet.
Essential to late blooming are languages, as the Chech say "through learning a new language one gets a new soul". Reading, reading, reading and remembering most of it increases the mix of knowledge.
But to read a lot you need time and time comes with getting older.
I will also add that Thomas Sowell as a late-bloomer. He has published close to 50 books in his lifetime (most recently in 2020), but he started getting his books published at the age of 40. He was a high-school dropout - but after the military service he completed his degrees at Harvard, Columbia, and Chicago.
"A study of when scientists publish their highest impact work found that scientists are just as likely to do their best work old as young."
That's what the study claims, but I'm not sure their model supports it. It does not include any field-specific estimates or adjustments (or at least, the authors refused to discuss it when I brought it up on Twitter with them and claimed that modeling individuals would account for this, even though I can't see how that possibly could: https://twitter.com/gwern/status/1170135752103137280 ), and so it doesn't refute Jones or the others. If you lump together life trajectories from researchers in fields like quantum mechanics where people are winning their Nobels in their 20s with trajectories from researchers in fields like medicine where they may be in their 60s, what will you get? Seems like you'd get something like no age-related effects...
Brilliant insight.. Such affirmation so delicious to my soul.
Ulysses S. Grant is a classic late bloomer. Maybe you could argue the ability was always there, but it needed the right circumstances to become apparent. I think there is also an argument that he was ASD, and this may have contributed to his lengthy period of being overlooked, and difficulties in advancing himself in the military and business worlds.
Fascinating! Now I'm going to explore your archive. There must be some interesting parallels with entrepreneurs. For every Zuckerberg there will be someone who needed many years of experience to build a truly great business. Intellectual capital growing with the physical balance sheet.
Essential to late blooming are languages, as the Chech say "through learning a new language one gets a new soul". Reading, reading, reading and remembering most of it increases the mix of knowledge.
But to read a lot you need time and time comes with getting older.
Awesome post!!
I will also add that Thomas Sowell as a late-bloomer. He has published close to 50 books in his lifetime (most recently in 2020), but he started getting his books published at the age of 40. He was a high-school dropout - but after the military service he completed his degrees at Harvard, Columbia, and Chicago.
The element or factor Q is too vague to explain anything. Persistence and luck have more explanatory power.
"A study of when scientists publish their highest impact work found that scientists are just as likely to do their best work old as young."
That's what the study claims, but I'm not sure their model supports it. It does not include any field-specific estimates or adjustments (or at least, the authors refused to discuss it when I brought it up on Twitter with them and claimed that modeling individuals would account for this, even though I can't see how that possibly could: https://twitter.com/gwern/status/1170135752103137280 ), and so it doesn't refute Jones or the others. If you lump together life trajectories from researchers in fields like quantum mechanics where people are winning their Nobels in their 20s with trajectories from researchers in fields like medicine where they may be in their 60s, what will you get? Seems like you'd get something like no age-related effects...